Timberlake, M. v. Consultech Australia Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 135

Timberlake, M. v. Consultech Australia Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 135

The respondent made representations that Datronics had a service agreement and spare parts/technical diagrams were available for the computer, which were misleading or deceptive as Datronics was not contractually bound, and the necessary diagrams were not available as represented. The applicant relied on these representations in choosing to purchase the computer, and was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price and interest.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Timberlake; Respondent: Consultech Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Contract Rescission, Warranty Service Obligations
Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Contract Rescission Warranty Service Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Timberlake

Applicant

Consultech Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations made by the respondent regarding warranty service were misleading or deceptive under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to rescind the contract for the purchase of a computer based on those representations

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent made representations that Datronics had a service agreement and spare parts/technical diagrams were available for the computer, which were misleading or deceptive as Datronics was not contractually bound, and the necessary diagrams were not available as represented. The applicant relied on these representations in choosing to purchase the computer, and was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant

Orders

  • Judgment for the applicant in the sum of $7074 with costs